COMMENTS- Internal Investigation by the Clownish HR

Newest comments first


They fail to provide even the essential training about health and security which the Articles R4141-2 and R4141-3-1 refer to « L'employeur informe les travailleurs sur les risques pour leur santé et leur sécurité d'une manière compréhensible pour chacun. Cette information ainsi que la formation à la sécurité sont dispensées lors de l'embauche et chaque fois que nécessaire. Cette information porte sur : 1° Les modalités d'accès au document unique d'évaluation des risques, prévu à l'article R. 4121-1 ; 2° Les mesures de prévention des risques identifiés dans le document unique d'évaluation des risques ; 3° Le rôle du service de santé au travail et, le cas échéant, des représentants du personnel en matière de prévention des risques professionnels ; 4° Le cas échéant, les dispositions contenues dans le règlement intérieur, prévues aux alinéas 1° et 2° de l'article L. 1321-1 ;5° Les consignes de sécurité incendie et instructions mentionnées à l'article R. 4227-37 ainsi que l'identité des personnes chargées de la mise en œuvre des mesures prévues à l'article R. 4227-38. » Pauline Branger does not inform the newcomers (or certain ones including the targets) about the relative safety regulations and does not integrate them in this regard. She only knows to intimidate the victims referring to incorrect defamation penalties. They fail to provide all types of training, project and security-related which is essential for every newly hired. Mrs Branger keeps a post of a manager when she lacks managerial skills in order to implement the role of HR and apply the relative dispositions. No notices, no security training, no essential integration, violating thus the dispositions of the law, because “the directors told her so”. A marionette with the title of “manager”. Obviously, the title of manager has lost its meaning. Real managers are able to impose themselves in order to implement the regulations and the law adding some value, those who kill the values under the title of HR by implementing the orders of the law-breakers are disgrace, they are useless! They provide NO SEcurity training to the newcomers who realise later that there is indeed NO SEcurity in the workplace in terms of installations and chemical substances and make justly NO!SE against the SErenity of the law-breakers.
One needs to visit the doctor at his office located few hundreds m away from CdR, in the location of the plant, to get his number and address as there is a notice on his door which informs employees about his address and telephone. No notices on boards or doors entails less printing, less paper and ink consumption. Thus, Hutchinson contributes to sustainable development reducing their ecological footprint. They save paper, they save trees, they uninstall office lamps, they save energy. Also, by keeping their employees in the dark depriving them of their right to receive information, the company avoids complaints and contributes thus to the director’s peace or serenity. It contributes to their peace and stability as they do not lose their chairs. Indeed, there is one big poster accessible by all in the direction building aside the lift with a motto about serenity. That unique poster on the floor of HR and directors with the highest “footprint” speaks volumes. The resources they consumed or burnt out in a 24 month period are not regenerated but they make NO!SErenity against the serenity of those with the highest “footprint”.
 
45,000 euro must be what Hutchinson pays the work inspector for concealing the violations of Hutchinson and not making “defamation” for the failure of Centre de Recherche to comply with the dispositions of the relative Articles. It is the amount of the bribe and not of the fine for defamation. Pauline Branger probably got confused. With so many bribes they offer to avoid fines it is difficult for her to differentiate the bribes from fines. As we did not get any bribe although we were asked by Mrs Branger “What do you want for not going to the court?” we can expose their violations making use of our freedom to impart information. We understand that they ignore those dispositions as many other Articles, but we are here to help them reminding them the law.
 
Pauline Branger and her “programmers” need to learn firstly their obligations to inform the employees and candidates about the texts of various articles of the labour and penal code by posters and other means and then to look what are the penalties for defamation - public and non public. It is essential also to learn about the freedom of expression and information. They should know that according to the law “the texts must be displayed at the workplace, as well as at the premises or the door of the premises where the hiring is done” being clearly visible to employees and candidates. Mrs Branger fails even to inform them orally but gets terrified when the victims inform her upon two years of employment about the penalties for harassment. Her reply is “I should inform you, but since you know there was no need”! An(e)ther communication, upon reporting of harassment, that some of the texts are displayed elsewhere, in other premises of the company, not connected with CdR is also ridiculous and overdue. Shall they suggest the employees to go to headquarters maybe to search for posters? It is in question if there are posters there. We did not see any poster in the place we worked and we were interviewed. Workplace is the place where an employee works, the CdR in the present case and not other external disconnected premises located away form CdR, the plants or the headquarters or other unsecured open building not belonging to the company’s premises. The texts must be displayed at the workplace being easily accessible to the employees and stay permanently there and not only when the inspector visits the workplace. For the information of those who know only the penalties for defamation (indeed incorrectly) the types of information they are obliged to display at workplace are the following: « harcèlement moral et sexuel » 222-33-2 et 222-33 of penal code (L1152-4, L1153-5 of labour code), « lutte contre la discrimination à l'embauche » 225-1 - 225-4 of penal code, « égalité professionnelle et salariale entre hommes et femmes » R3221-2 of labour code, « horaires collectifs de travail » L3171-1, D3171-2 - D3171-3, « repos hebdomadaire » R3172-1 - R3172-9, « congés payés » D3141-6, D3141-28 of labour code, « inspection du travail » D4711-1, « convention ou accord collectif du travail » L2262-5, R2262-1 - R2262-3, « service d'accueil téléphonique sur les discriminations » L1132-3-3, « médecine du travail » D4711-1, « consignes de sécurité et d'incendie » R4227-34 - R4227-38, L2262-5, R2262-1 - R2262-3, « document unique d'évaluation des risques professionnels » R4121-1 - R4121-4, « panneaux syndicaux » L2142-3, travail temporaire R1251-9, « interdiction de fumer et vapoter » R3512-2 and L3513-6 du code de la santé publique, « élections des représentants du personnel» L2311-1 à L2324-4, « règlement intérieur » L1321-1 à L1321-4 and R1321-1, « comité d’hygiène, de sécurité et des conditions de travail (CHSCT) » L4742-1 and R4613-8, « accord de participation » D3323-12. Establishment without union/syndicat indicates the existence of jungle, which is the case for the woeful CdR. The failure of Hutchinson Centre de Recherche to comply with the dispositions of the relative Articles is punishable by a fine provided for the contraventions of the 4th class, that is 750 euros/missing poster. So, multiplying that fine by the number of the missing from CdR posters, that is 21, the fine increases to 15,750 euro. Adding the previously mentioned penalties we reach totally life imprisonment plus 135.5 years imprisonment plus 31,477,000 euro fine. Hutchinson CdR, as all the employers, is obliged to inform the employees by any means about certain texts offering them an equivalent guarantee in terms of the right to information. For example, a diffusion via an intranet site of the company. Since they failed to do so by all means, Hutchinson SAtire site takes in charge to inform the employees about the “hot texts” and push the clownish directors and woeful HR at the corner. They wish employees to be in the dark to avoid complaints, but SAtire has come to throw light to their long-term offenses. Not only they deprive their employees of their right to receive information, but they also try to deprive the expelled employees of the freedom of expression, the freedom to hold opinions and impart information.
 
Apart from the fact that Hutchinson CdR fails to display the articles of labour code referring to moral and sexual harassment and the related fines for the offenders, they also fail to display the work schedule contrarily to the law. According to the articles L 3171-1 and D3171-2 of the labour code « L'employeur affiche les heures auxquelles commence et finit le travail ainsi que les heures et la durée des repos. », « l'horaire collectif est affiché en caractères lisibles et apposé de façon apparente dans chacun des lieux de travail auxquels il s'applique.» The only board we saw is one in which the employees need to indicate the days they get leave, no poster with the work schedule and other dispositions! Indeed, the managers are requested to work 08.30-18.00 “in order to be respected” even when their lunch break lasts only half an hour. The legal 35 hours work week applies only for the technicians. Although the project managers are asked to register monthly 39 work hours/week (while they work 47h/w), there is no compensation of any kind at least for the project managers. Their payslips state “type horaire: normal”. What is normal, the legal or the unpaid overtime? The management claims that the salary of the “cadres” is higher than the technicians’, so they have to work more! According to the article 3171-12 « Lorsque des salariés d'un atelier, d'un service ou d'une équipe ne travaillent pas selon le même horaire collectif de travail affiché, un document mensuel, dont le double est annexé au bulletin de paie, est établi pour chaque salarié. » But, of course, there is no such document provided. The salary offered to those with high qualifications for a manager post is calculated on the basis of the hours they work which exceed the legal 35 hours and not on the basis of their credentials and responsibilities?!! Then the salary difference should be stated in their payslips as overtime pay! According to the article L3221-4 « Sont considérés comme ayant une valeur égale, les travaux qui exigent des salariés un ensemble comparable de connaissances professionnelles consacrées par un titre, un diplôme ou une pratique professionnelle, de capacités découlant de l'expérience acquise, de responsabilités et de charge physique ou nerveuse.» The law does not mention anything about the work schedule which can define the salary. The Article L3121-27 « La durée légale de travail effectif des salariés à temps complet est fixée à trente-cinq heures par semaine » does not mention that the managers are excluded from its application. Regarding the “higher” salary of the project managers than that of the technicians, which suggests that they have to work more, is a salary of 34,000 euros ridiculously offered to an employee with high credentials for the post of project manager so competitive which excuses a demand for working more than 35 hours? Anyway, the salary stated in their contract should not negate the legal work schedule of 35 hours/w. The director asks a project manager to have a meeting after 17.30 and the department manager even dares to send a message at the mobile of a project manager at 18.00 when she/he leaves work to request the latter to prepare and deliver a presentation for the next morning at 8.00, indeed in front of a big panel!! When an employee leaves work at 17.30 the department manager calls the latter to learn the reason that she/he left early! Even more, when they need to make a business travel abroad a project manager is asked to schedule the travel after work - during non working hours- without remuneration of any kind, in order to work at the office during the day! For emphasis the department manager indicates that “it is a request from the director of the establishment”! Sometimes we want to stay in work longer, as we are highly engaged into what we are doing and could even continue working at home, but we can not be imposed to stay at work until 18.00, make meetings with the director at 17.30 and get tasks to implement at home, for example preparation of slides to present next morning at 8.00! Also, the department manager can even change the deadline for submission of reports in order to make certain employees to work at home violating their personal time! Besides, according to the Article R3221-2 « Les dispositions des articles L. 3221-1 à L. 3221-7 du code du travail sont portées, par tout moyen, à la connaissance des personnes ayant accès aux lieux de travail, ainsi qu'aux candidats à l'embauche. Il en est de même pour les dispositions réglementaires pris pour l'application de ces articles. » The candidates do not get informed, though. We did not see any poster in CdR neither as candidates nor as employees. We did not see any poster in the buildings were the interviews took place which is obligation according to the law. Some employees upon their request to see posters, they were told that there is a poster concerning discrimination in another building outside CdR (few hundreds m away where the plant is located with which CdR is not at all united) which neither the candidates, nor the employees visit. The law states that posters indicating several dispositions should exist to all the buildings where employees work and the law applies, clearly visible to all or they should be brought in the knowledge of the employees and candidates by any means. According to the Article R3173-2 « Le fait de méconnaître les dispositions des deux premiers alinéas de l'article L. 3171-1 et celles de l'article L. 3171-2 relatives au contrôle de la durée du travail, est puni de l'amende prévue pour les contraventions de la quatrième classe. Cette amende est appliquée autant de fois qu'il y a de personnes employées dans des conditions susceptibles d'être sanctionnées au titre des dispositions de cet article. » Pauline Branger, the human resources manager of CdR, knows only that “the penalties for defamation public and non public is 45,000 euro” which is of course incorrect. She indeed impressed us with her knowledge and made us laugh once more! Obviously, she and those who “program” the petty HR fail to read both the code du travail, as well as the code pénal and apply the relative dispositions at workplace. It seems that there had never been inspection in CdR or maybe they display the posters only the day the inspector visits them. The working hours (47h/week) are “normal”, not legal and on top of that they offer contracts without holidays, without days off and holidays allowance! This is also absolutely “normal”. Our disgust due to their violations and provocation is normal and our denunciation is absolutely legal.

It is also interesting the “feedback” the petty investigator gives to the victim when the latter asks what was the response of a harasser and a witness to a particular reported act. A director (Nicolas Garois) provokes an employee in front of the department manager (Natacha Carniol) during an office meeting saying “You look tired, do you want to make you something?” and putting disgustingly his tongue around his lips. The feedback Pauline Branger provided was «He said something, but I do not have to tell you. This is for me, not for you.”!!!**?@*! When the victim expresses an intention to make a complaint to police which can run a proper investigation and provide the necessary testimonies to the victim to proceed to the court they try to intimidate/ deter her by saying “Police can do injustice to you. Police can do mistakes, they can mistreat you. Also, the director (Nicolas Garois) knows police, he is friend of them, it will be bad for you to go to police». The results of the shameful internal investigation which was held without putting in confrontation the parties for revealing the truth was according to Pauline Branger only “for the human resources manager, not for the victim”. But their ridiculous fake testimonies and unverified lies were presented formally to the court accusing the victim for hallucinations and attributing to the latter an imaginary bad profile. Their fake and nasty accusations were for the victim, not for the human resources manager, though. It is our duty to underline the criminal penalties that the HRM incurs who “by her functions was called upon to contribute to the manifestation of the truth”.

En plus des peines pour la traite des êtres humains commis par le HRD déplorable, la petite RH enquêtrice, mon homonyme, encourt des peines pour l'enquête interne honteuse qu'elle a menée. Comme il a été noté précédemment elle a exclu frauduleusement les témoignages de ceux qu’ils avaient vérifié les faits réels et elle a soumis à la cour les faux. Aussi, quelques employés qui étaient témoins de certains actes de harcèlement n'avaient pas du tout été interrogés. La petite enquêtrice sous la direction de l'entreprise a même transformé frauduleusement le "silence" d'un témoin à un témoignage mensonger. Elle a privé la victime des droits et elle ne lui a pas communiqué les témoignages à la fin de son enquête. Elle a échoué de vérifier les fausses histoires des petits témoins bien que leurs mensonges fussent flagrants! Les petits menteurs ont même imputé à la victime certains de leurs actes de harcèlement et la petite enquêtrice n’a pas enquêté, elle n’a même mis les parties en confrontation et elle a soumis à la justice des accusations non vérifiées, des mensonges flagrants! Nous avons bien indiqué que les peines pour le témoignage mensonger sont de 5 ans d'emprisonnement et 75 000 € d'amende / menteur. En effet, selon le code pénal «le témoignage mensonger est puni de 7 ans d'emprisonnement et de 100 000 € d'amende lorsqu'il est provoqué par la remise d'une récompense quelconque et lorsque celui en faveur duquel le témoignage mensonger a été commis est passible d'une peine criminelle.» Selon l’Article 434-4 «est puni de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 45 000 € d'amende le fait, en vue de faire obstacle à la manifestation de la vérité, l'altération, la falsification ou l'effacement des traces ou indices, soit par l'apport, le déplacement ou la suppression d'objets quelconques; de détruire, soustraire, receler ou altérer un document de nature à faciliter la découverte d'un crime ou d'un délit, la recherche des preuves ou la condamnation des coupables. Lorsque les faits sont commis par une personne qui, par ses fonctions, est appelée à concourir à la manifestation de la vérité, la peine est portée à cinq ans d'emprisonnement et à 75 000 € d'amende». Aussi, selon l’Article 434-15 «le fait d'user de promesses, offres, présents, pressions, menaces, voies de fait, manoeuvres ou artifices au cours d'une procédure ou en vue d'une demande ou défense en justice afin de déterminer autrui soit à faire ou délivrer une déposition, une déclaration ou une attestation mensongère, soit à s'abstenir de faire ou délivrer une déposition, une déclaration ou une attestation, est puni de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 45 000 € d'amende, même si la subornation n'est pas suivie d'effet». De plus, la petite RH enquêtrice a noté faussement en visant à intimider et tromper la victime que «les sanctions pénales pour la diffamation publique et non publique sont 45 000 €». L’enquêtrice a défini incorrectement comme «témoignage de mauvaise foi» un témoignage «avec une volonté d'endommager». Toutefois, «de mauvaise foi» signifie d’intention de tromper - affirmer quelque chose de faux. En effet, son enquête honteuse et les témoignages mensongers approuvés par elle étaient manifestement de mauvaise foi ! Selon l’Article 434-5 du code penal «toute menace ou tout autre acte d'intimidation à l'égard de quiconque commis en vue de déterminer la victime d'un crime ou d'un délit à ne pas porter plainte ou à se rétracter est puni de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 45 000 € d'amende». Aussi, l’enquêtrice a dénaturé la substance des paroles du victim en écrivant « je veux des dommages personnels» bien que la victime n’ait dit que «je veux que justice soit faite». En effet, une vengeance n’est prise que quand la justice n'est pas faite. Donc, en ajoutant 11 ans d'emprisonnement et 165,000 € d'amende qui en appliquant le bonus x5 augmente à 825,000 €, leurs infractions sont punis de la réclusion criminelle à perpétuité plus 129 ans d'emprisonnement plus 31,090,000 € d'amende. En effet, ils sont tous *****s.

Regarding the penalties for the false accusations those must be multiplied by two for the false testimonies of petty “witnesses” as well as for the dismissal letter based on lies and fake accusations which had been already turned down with strong evidences presented by the victim(s). Although those evidences had been accepted orally by the nasty company the false accusations were kept in the letter and presented to the justice. So adding 45,000euro more and two years imprisonment (one for the letter and one for the nasty fake testimonies brought to justice) the total penalties for Huechienhonte raise to 2,863,000 and 67years of imprisonment.



Sabine, regarding the penalties for usurpation of signature it must be multiplied with the number of the cases. If we count also the conspiracy case mentioned earlier in which a vile department manager changes the annual evaluation of a technician adding fake negative comments against her/his project manager aiming to kick the latter off when the technician has made only positive comments about the collaboration with her/his manager the penalties for usurpation of signature raises to six years of imprisonment and 90,000 euros fine. So totally the penalties for Huechienshonte raise to 2,728,000 € and 63 years of imprisonment. When the project manager asks the petty HR manager after three months of submission of the documents to check the annual evaluation of the technician HR denies…How petty are all they! Indeed, their nasty practices are verified by other project managers and technicians. Obviously, there is a long background to their harassment and violations some of which are difficult to be proved.

Me Massis states that everything written in the site is lies. The harassment acts described have been well proved with strong/clear evidences and testimonies which were not submitted to the court. The harassers under the protection of the petty HR investigator did not prove their lies, fake stories, accusations and characterizations for the victim which were presented formally to the court. Where do they base that statement that we lie? They can not accuse people for having hallucinations without being able to prove it.



Il faut noter que le choc est grand aussi lorsque la victime lit quelques jours avant le tribunal les faux témoignages d'employé(s) qui lui avaient confirmé qu'ils étaient restés silencieux. L'usurpation de signature est un faux, c'est-à-dire une infraction pénale qui est constituée par toute altération frauduleuse de la vérité, de nature à causer un préjudice et accomplie par quelque moyen que ce soit, dans un écrit ou tout autre support d'expression de la pensée qui a pour objet ou qui peut avoir pour effet d'établir la preuve d'un droit ou d'un fait ayant des conséquences juridiques. Le faux et l'usage de faux sont punis de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 45 000 euros d'amende. Donc, la peine totale que Huechienshonte doit payer s'élève à 2 683 000€ et 60 ans d'emprisonnement. On peut refuser de participer au harcèlement contre des collègues étant protégé par la loi. Aussi, un témoin peut garder le silence pendant une audience étant protégée par la loi. Le "silence" que ces collègues «dignes de confiance» ont gardé pendant l'audience mené par le petit RH a parlé beaucoup de leur ethos. Peut-être qu'ils pensaient que le tribunal n'aurait jamais lieu, c'est-à-dire l'avocat serait couard. Mais leurs crimes ont été révélés. Leurs témoignages ont bien montré qui est lâche ou petit. Un énorme hueeee pour eux et le petit RH. Comment pouvez-vous vous tolérer? Vouz méritez tout mépris, on doit cracher à vous. De nouveau, hueeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Boooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A victim reports to HR harassment acts, various violations which can be verified very easily by questioning employees and reviewing the tasks, responsibilities, the utopic projects or missions of the victim. On the other hand the harassers lie to HR, report fake/fantastic stories, attribute a wrong character to a victim without any base throwing mud to her/him and HR although can very easily prove their lies by running an investigation and bring the opposing parties in confrontation, accepts their figments of imagination formally. The HR manager “cheap investigator” instead of posing to employees a number of appropriate and precise questions in relation to reported acts of harassment with the purpose of shedding light on each and every claim and subsequently registering short, precise and relevant replies, she accepts irrelevant long defamatory essays-reports of the harassers, obviously fabricated and submitted outside of any hearing, who relate with wickedness fake events without evidences and throw mad to their colleague. Not only she fails to investigate on the reported by the victim acts, but she accepts accusations of harassers without proceeding to any investigation to verify the fake stories questioning the victim and others and she submits them to the court! How cheap are all they! HR even asks witnesses to deny harassment acts and sign lies and if any verifies the real facts simply their testimonies are excluded from those presented to the court. Obviously such fake testimonies consist clearly a defamation against the victim approved by the deplorable HR and the dumb directors who program them. We remind to Huechienshonte that there are disciplinary and criminal sanctions against the e m p l o y e r who brought in bad faith (with willingness to damage) false testimonies to court (ANI March 26, 2010:”intentionally false accusations should not be tolerated and may result in disciplinary action.”). According to the criminal code Huechienshonte must pay 45 000 € fine for the public defamation based on lies against the victim who reported only the t r u t h providing clear evidences. So the total penalty considering all the rest prementioned violations for such shameful entity raises to 2 638 000 euro and 57 years of imprisonment. [Note: not only the lawyers know the French/international law but also the engineers).


It has been well noted that a false testimony is considered an extra crime punishable with 5 years imprisonment and 75 000€ fine. If this is multiplied by nine false testimonies requested and approved by the “petit RH enquêteur” who tried desperately to hide the evident facts and throw mud to the victim (to whom they did not even provided a feedback) the penalties must be amended to 45years imprisonment and 675 000 euros fine. So the total penalty considering all the rest aforementioned violations for such shameful entity raises to 2 593 000 euro and 57 years of imprisonment.


L’enquête interne menée par les petites ressources humaines … la plus GROSSE HONTE! La victime qui porte des accusations de harcèlement n'a aucun droit. La victime n'a pas le droit d’accès au dossier ni le droit de demander une confrontation avec les menteurs ni le droit de demander l’annulation d’actes d’enquête pour vice de procédure, tandis que les harceleurs interrogés peuvent même demander de nouveaux actes pour renforcer plus leurs mensonges! Il n'y a pas de retour de la part des HR à la victime concernant les témoignages. Les actes d’enquête fabriqués pour servir seulement le « bénéfice de l'entreprise » sont communiquées à la victime juste proche de la date du procès devant le tribunal en lui provoquant un énorme choc ! Ils ne lui donnent même pas le temps de les contester. En effet, les témoignages de ceux qui ont vérifié les faits réels sont exclus de ceux qui sont soumis à la cour. De plus, les employés qui étaient témoins de certains actes de harcèlement n'avaient pas du tout été interrogés par la petite enquêteur. Mais après l'arrivée de la SAtire les harceleurs veulent avoir une confrontation avec les IPs dans des entités externes qu’ils ont précédemment évitées fortement? Satire ne souhaite plus aucune confrontation avec leurs visages rouges de honte.

The penalties are raised even higher for the fabrication of exasperating lies against the victim during the internal investigation directed by HR upon reporting of harassment. Employees fabricate lies which are requested and approved by HR. This is the role of HR, approval of lies for the benefit of the company when they could easily discover the truth. A false testimony is considered an extra crime punished with 5 years imprisonment and 75 000€ fine. This raises the penalties, Sabine to 11 years imprisonment and 165 000 € for such shameful entity. Huechienshonte not only does not pay a cent for the crimes they commit but they have the audacity (with the negative meaning) to present themselves as victims of the unfavorable criticism they provoke and seek to get indemnities and penalize satire, the highest form of wit used to mock and shame individuals, corporations or government for their shameful practices.

Post a Comment

0 Comments

Tracfone Beginners Guide - New to Tracfone? Start Here!